Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: This is what I want

  1. #1
    Billy
    Guest

    This is what I want

    This is what I want, what I really want. A fast pocketable camera with a top notch wide to medium zoom, 10-100mm F2 through the range, with a usable viewfinder, shoots RAW only, produces high quality images that are printable at A3 size, A&M modes only, minimal menu's and options only, honestly priced manufacturers long life batteries, fast reliable AF and low noise. I'd like this camera for under a grand. Closest so far is my GF1 half way to what I really want.

    I like to carry a camera everywhere I go, if it moves me....shoot it! A DSLR is a hindrance to me in general especially when shooting unposed candid shots etc. I've found that a standard lens often runs out of focal length leading to later cropping and loss of image quality so for me a shortish zoom gets me more for everything more of the time. I've always used A&M with film and digital cameras and have never wanted or had to use P, SCN modes etc, etc. Of course I realize these modes are for novices [not all] who want to shoot and print a jpeg without editing. I resent having to pay for the toys I'll never use so I think it would make sense for manufactures to make 2 models of the same camera for instance GF1-NP and GF1-P the latter without the software and electrics and any savings could be put into a usable viewfinder and better, cheaper lenses.

    I find the prices charged for digital cameras and lenses to be extortionate, the profit margin must be monstrous, I'd love to see the breakdown of true costs etc. in the words of the stones “ you can't always get what you want” WHY????

  2. #2
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    This is what I want, what I really want. A fast pocketable camera with a top notch wide to medium zoom, 10-100mm F2 through the range, with a usable viewfinder, shoots RAW only, produces high quality images that are printable at A3 size, A&M modes only, minimal menu's and options only, honestly priced manufacturers long life batteries, fast reliable AF and low noise. I'd like this camera for under a grand.
    Don't we all ...

  3. #3
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: This is what I want

    Ok couple of points

    1) 10-100mm f2 aint ever gonna happen... assuming you are talking 35mm equivalents... if you are talking actual 4/3 sensor sizes you are still pushing the at the edges of physics

    2) regarding P and scene modes... they are all software.. taking them out wont change the build cost of the camera

    3) I guess most of the camera manufacturers work on the same 30/35% margin on top of cost of goods/manufacture... even Leica. Thats business... even Apple who sell goods in the millions return an average margin of the 30/35%

    Actually I reckon cameras today are much cheaper in real terms than they were in the past


    K

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    I find the prices charged for digital cameras and lenses to be extortionate, the profit margin must be monstrous, I'd love to see the breakdown of true costs etc. in the words of the stones “ you can't always get what you want” WHY????
    I'm guessing you're completely ignoring the cost of development, marketing, distribution, support, etc. in your opinion of 'extortionate costs' and 'monstrous profit margins'. Surely if products had the ability to simply invent themselves and apparate in your living room as you think of them, the costs would be indeed reasonable. Such is not reality, however. If you look at Panasonic's annual reports, you'll find an average profit margin of roughly 5%. Truly monstrous, eh?

    It almost sounds like you're looking for a high-end P&S like this one: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1927263,00.asp. Does RAW, and has the built-in zoom you almost want. Not all that expensive either.

    Cheers!

  5. #5
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinparis View Post
    Ok couple of points

    1) 10-100mm f2 aint ever gonna happen...
    I recall Issac Asimov wrote a short story detailing such a concept ... I think he called it 'anopticon'. It sounded really good. Bent light using some force not the optical approach

    however people were flying around in space ships too

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Go to the publicly available financials of camera manufacturers, there you will learn about their "true costs", in the "true" sense of the term. Not on a product by product basis, but including the entire product portfolio. And you will learn, it's a tough business with thin margins, if any at all, particularly in recent years.

  7. #7
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    This is what I want, what I really want. A fast pocketable camera with a top notch wide to medium zoom, 10-100mm F2 through the range, with a usable viewfinder, shoots RAW only, produces high quality images that are printable at A3 size, A&M modes only, minimal menu's and options only, honestly priced manufacturers long life batteries, fast reliable AF and low noise. I'd like this camera for under a grand. Closest so far is my GF1 half way to what I really want.
    "…and as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony."

  8. #8
    Member kai.e.g.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Italy
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Indeed - the margins, after R&D, marketting, etc... are very thin. By no means monsterous.

    As for all those added modes - taking them out won't reduce the cost of the camera one bit... though it would simplify the camera for the end-user, which would be quite nice :-)

    On the lens. It's not completely beyond possibility that a system lens could at least cover 10~100mm, but a constant f/2 is extremely unlikely. You'll find TV lenses (ie, from Canon) for c-mount that cover a similar focal length and constant aperture range, but you'll have to put up with a tonne of vignetting at the wide end.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    ...shoots RAW only...
    What's wrong with having an in-camera JPEG converter for those of us who do not wish to spend our lives in front of a computer processing RAW data but yet want to benefit from all the other good stuff the "dream" camera has to offer?
    Tullio

  10. #10
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    What's wrong with having an in-camera JPEG converter for those of us who do not wish to spend our lives in front of a computer processing RAW data but yet want to benefit from all the other good stuff the "dream" camera has to offer?
    Nothing wrong, really, it is just that you lose so much of the potential the image might have to offer. There are times, well a few, where the jpeg is good enough. Now if in-camera jpegs were as good as the jpegs that can be produced from raws.... that is another discussion altogether.
    -bob

  11. #11
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Nothing wrong, really, it is just that you lose so much of the potential the image might have to offer. ...
    Agreed. But as long as the photographer is content with the results of the JPEG conversion made by the camera, I don't see that as being an issue. I say let the user decide whether to shoot RAW or JPEG. I see that being an issue if the RAW file would be compromised in any way by the camera having to convert it to JPEG. But since that's not the case, why not offer both formats?
    Tullio

  12. #12
    Billy
    Guest

    Re: This is what I want

    Thank you for your mixed responses. I was dreaming and wishing but not hoping. How many of you fine folks would like one as I described?
    Cost of cameras is artificially high for max profit! My Mrs needed a camera so i googled and found LX3's to be the best bet. While googling i came across the same camera with the £eica dot which was around twice the price of the LX3 and no one was able to say why except for marginally better software, a wrist strap and better lens coating? The software and lens coating did not make very much of a difference as i took RAW+jpeg's with both cameras at my favourite camera shop and later looked at them in lightroom. I presume the difference to be only obvious when pixel peeping. Check for yourselves, the webs awash with it. Another example, After buying the LX3 and gf1 I decided to buy spare batteries for both. LX3 £25, GF1 £50-60. I went to see a guy who runs a battery supply Co. Earlier during last year I'd heard about some AA batteries that didn't lose their charge so i contacted him for advice He supplied the batteries which had a 2 year warranty and are a well known and respected brand, Ansmann and have been just as good as he'd described so I asked about batteries for the camera's. He had 1 in stock for the LX3 £7.50 Energizer brand, 2 year warranty. The GF1 same brand were on order, expected price £10-17. I asked why the camera makers batteries was so much more expensive. Because they can get away with it and that to make etc should cost no more than a pound or 2 and the better branded alternatives are just as good he told me. I'm more than surprised at so many of you taking the manufacturers side and think they're getting a fair deal. The bulk of R&D was done and paid for years ago.
    photosmart42, sorry for not being serious enough for you. You sound as if you have one of the cameras you pointed to, to recommend it so highly I'd suggest you try a GF1, I'm sure you'd like it much more.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    photosmart42, sorry for not being serious enough for you. You sound as if you have one of the cameras you pointed to, to recommend it so highly I'd suggest you try a GF1, I'm sure you'd like it much more.
    Read into it what you must, but I never accused you of not being 'serious enough'. I don't have the camera I linked, and I took the time to find something that seemed to fit what you wanted. I've very happy with my GH1, and have no interest in the GF1.

    As for the other stuff you're writing, you have the right to your own opinion of course. I'm not sure what R&D you're referring to that's been paid for already many years ago, but it's certainly not the camera technology. I also took the time to look up the profit margins for Panasonic for you to dispel what seems to be a populist misconception that big corporations are fleecing us dry (I have no financial interest in Panasonic, just in interest that they keep innovating the m4/3 system they introduced), but you're still intent on ignoring that data. The fact that Panasonic actually lost money on 2009 I'm sure has no effect on you.

    So be happy with whatever makes you happy, and continue enjoying this hobby we all share. I for one am off to take some photos. Cheers!
    -Dragos

  14. #14
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: This is what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    Agreed. But as long as the photographer is content with the results of the JPEG conversion made by the camera, I don't see that as being an issue. I say let the user decide whether to shoot RAW or JPEG.
    I always thought that since the camera makers supplied such krappy software to download their images into such pointless places on your PC perhaps it would be nicer if they provided better PC side softare, did less in the camera and then the RAW -> JPG conversion could actually happen with download process.

    Rather than investing heavily in camera side preprocessesing. They could actually then offer software upgrades to the process.

    The reasons that historically this was not done are because of such things as limited data storage on the media cards (jpg essentially increases the number of images on a card) IO between the camera and PC was usually slow (anyone remember downloading from serial ports?). There is really no significant reason why the download process could not also perform a convert giving the client both RAW and JPG

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •